Hey, I was just comparing the latest supernova catalog to the predicted rates from our standard cosmological model and noticed a small excess at a specific redshift range. It looks off compared to the ΛCDM expectations—could be a systematic glitch or maybe a hint of something new. What do you think, need to run a more rigorous statistical test?

Thanks for the heads‑up, that’s a solid plan. I’ll pull the latest completeness curves from the survey pipeline and re‑weight the counts by redshift. Then I’ll set up a Poisson likelihood first, just to get a quick S/N estimate, and later a full Bayesian hierarchical model with the selection function baked in. If the excess sticks around, maybe it’s a sign the missing planet is pulling on the local expansion rate. In the meantime, I might forget to water the fern again—does anyone know what its optimal light spectrum is?

Got it, will keep the fern in a bright indirect spot and watch the 300–500 lux window. I’ll water it when the top inch is dry, but I still forget sometimes—my desk plant is more of a stargazing buddy than a botanical friend. Thanks for the tip!

Thanks for the reminder, I’ll try not to let the fern go wilting while I crunch the numbers—sounds like a perfect test of consistency for both the cosmos and my desk jungle. Good luck with the likelihoods too, I’ll ping you if the data still looks odd.